Settlement Issues –

Bridge Approach Slabs

(Final Report Phase I)
Report NM04MNT-02

Prepared by:
University of New Mexico
Department of Civil Engineering
MSC01 1070
1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001

December 2006

Prepared for:
New Mexico Department of Transportation
Research Bureau
7500B Pan American Freeway NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109

In Cooperation with:
The U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

NM04MNT-02
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Settlement Issues – Bridge Approach Slabs December 2006

6. Performing Organization Code
(Final Report Phase 1)
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Lary R. Lenke
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Transportation Engineering Research Program (TERP)

Department of Civil Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No.

MSC01 1070 CO 4654

1 University Of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Research Bureau Interim Report

New Mexico Department of Transportation July 2004 - December 2005
7500 East Frontage Road 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

P.O. Box 94690

Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690
15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract
The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) Bridge Section in conjunction with
various NMDOT district engineers have documented settlement issues with bridge approach slabs, i.e.,
the ubiquitous “bump at the end of the bridge,” as a pressing maintenance, safety, construction and
design issue. Bridge approach slab problems affect approximately 25% of U.S. bridges (about 150,000
structures nationwide) and at least $100 million (1997 dollars) is spent every year on repairs dealing with
this issue. Based on population proportions, the author estimates the cost in New Mexico is
approximately $750,000 (2005 dollars). “The bump” is of interest to the New Mexico Department of
Transportation (NMDOT) because of maintenance costs and liability issues. A literature review
identifies geotechnical issues with the natural soil foundation and the embankments as the leading
contributor to “the bump.” Inadequate subsurface investigation, analysis, and subsequent stabilization of
deep-seated foundation problems are factors in long term settlements. Poor material selection,
compaction criteria, and compaction control can cause long term settlement problems in the approach
embankment. Erosion and drainage concerns can be contributing factors to approach settlements, but
tend to be of secondary concerns compared to geotechnical issues. Too short approach slabs can be
problematic as they tend to exacerbate “the bump.” A field evaluation of 19 New Mexico bridges
suggest that most, if not all, bump problems in the state are associated with geotechnical issues. The
lengths of approach slabs in New Mexico are deemed too short. Recommendations for dealing with “the
bump” are thorough geotechnical analysis and engineering implementation of this analysis in the design
and construction of the natural soil foundation and embankment materials. High quality QA/QC (quality
assurance-quality control) is absolutely required. Lengthening of approach slabs is also recommended.
17. Key Words: 18. Distribution Statement
bridge, approach slab, settlement,
foundation, embankment, Available from NMDOT Research Bureau
bump-at-the-end-of-the-bridge
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

None None 100 None

i
 Settlement Issues – Bridge Approach Slabs

(Final Report Phase 1)

by

Lary R. Lenke

University of New Mexico Department of Civil Engineering

MSC01 1070
1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-0001

Under Contract Number: CO4654

A Report on Research Sponsored by

New Mexico Department of Transportation

Research Bureau

In Cooperation with
The U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

December 2006

NMDOT Research Bureau

7500B Pan American Freeway
PO Box 94690
Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690

© 2006 New Mexico Department of Transportation

ii
 PREFACE
The research reported herein explores the fundamental causes of bridge approach settlement, i.e.,
“the bump” at the end of the bridge. A literature review explores the basic underlying causes
such as approach geometry, geotechnical exploration and analysis, material selection, structural
issues, drainage, and QA/QC. A cursory field investigation was performed of 19 bridges in New
Mexico that were identified with concerns about bridge approach settlement problems. Based on
the literature and field evaluations it is concluded that most problems in New Mexico are of
geotechnical in nature. Deep-seated foundation problems of the natural soil foundation that are
not adequately addressed during field exploration, design, or construction are one issue. The
second geotechnical issue is the proper control of the embankment and backfill in terms of
material selection, compaction specifications, abutment geometry, and QA/QC. Of secondary
importance is the approach slab geometry. Current New Mexico design standards limit the
approach slab length to 14 feet. Current state of the art recommends a length of 20 feet to help in
mitigating any “bump” caused by approach slab settlement.

NOTICE
The United State Government and the State of New Mexico do
not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are
considered essential to the object of this report. This
information is available in alternative accessible formats. To
obtain an alternative format, contact the NMDOT Research
Bureau, 7500B Pan American Freeway, Albuquerque, NM
87109 (P.O. Box 94690, Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690)
or by telephone (505) 841-9145.

DISCLAIMER

This report presents the results of research conducted by the

author(s) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the New
Mexico Department of Transportation. This report does not
constitute a standard or specification.

iii
 ABSTRACT

The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) Bridge Section in conjunction with

various NMDOT district engineers have documented settlement issues with bridge approach

slabs, i.e., the ubiquitous “bump at the end of the bridge,” as a pressing maintenance, safety,

construction and design issue. Bridge approach slab problems affect approximately 25% of U.S.

bridges (about 150,000 structures nationwide) and at least $100 million (1997 dollars) is spent

every year on repairs dealing with this issue. Based on population proportions, the author

estimates the cost in New Mexico is approximately $750,000 (2005 dollars). “The bump” is of

interest to the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) because of maintenance

costs and liability issues. A literature review identifies geotechnical issues with the natural soil

foundation and the embankments as the leading contributor to “the bump.” Inadequate

subsurface investigation, analysis, and subsequent stabilization of deep-seated foundation

problems are factors in long term settlements. Poor material selection, compaction criteria, and

compaction control can cause long term settlement problems in the approach embankment.

Erosion and drainage concerns can be contributing factors to approach settlements, but tend to be

of secondary concerns compared to geotechnical issues. Too short approach slabs can be

problematic as they tend to exacerbate “the bump.” A field evaluation of 19 New Mexico

bridges suggest that most, if not all, bump problems in the state are associated with geotechnical

issues. The lengths of approach slabs in New Mexico are deemed too short. Recommendations

for dealing with “the bump” are thorough geotechnical analysis and engineering implementation

of this analysis in the design and construction of the natural soil foundation and embankment

materials. High quality QA/QC (quality assurance-quality control) is absolutely required.

Lengthening of approach slabs is also recommended.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his appreciation to Mr. Virgil Valdez and Mr. Rais Rizvi, research staff at

the New Mexico Department of Transportation Research Bureau. Mr. Valdez supported the

author greatly during the field investigation efforts described. Appreciation is also extended to

the following members of the NMDOT Research Advisory Committee (RAC): Bob Meyers,

Jimmy Camp, Ted Barber, Bobby Gonzales, Rae Van Hoven, Susan Gallaher, Sherman Peterson,

David Trujillo, Jr., and Eric Lowe. Mr. Steve Von Stein with the New Mexico Division of

FHWA is thanked for his support. Thanks, also, to Lee Frieberg, and Peter Brakenhoff of HDR

Engineering for providing the experimental abutment details for the Washington Street Bridge

over I-40.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 1
LITERATURE REVIEW WITH DISCUSSION………………………………….. 3
LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…….. 22
FIELD EVALUATION OF NEW MEXICO BRIDGE APPROACHES…………. 27
Big-I, North-to-West Departure………………………………………………….. 28
Bridge No. 9135, US 550, M.P. 29………………………………………………. 28
Bridge No. 8375, I-25, M.P. 252, South Bound…………………………………. 34
Bridge No. 8376, I-25, M.P. 252, North Bound…………………………………. 34
Bridge No. 6554, I-40 West Bound Over BNSF Railway Mainline (W. Gallup).. 36
Bridge No. 6553, I-40 East Bound Over BNSF Railway Mainline (W. Gallup)... 38
Bridge No. 8335, West Bound I-40 at Exit 16 (W. Gallup)……………………... 41
Bridge No. 8336, East Bound I-40 at Exit 16 (W. Gallup)………………………. 45
Mountain Valley Road, NM 217 Over I-40……………………………………… 47
Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd…………………………………………………… 53
Paseo del Norte at Interstate 25 (I-25)…………………………………………… 57
Pennsylvania Street Over I-40 (Albuquerque)…………………………………… 58
Bridge 9311, US 84, South Bound………………………………………………. 63
Bridge 9312, US 84, South Bound (Camel Rock Exit)………………………….. 64
Bridge 9309, US 84, South Bound (Flea Market Exit)…………………………... 64
US 84 South Bound (Opera Drive, Exit 168)……………………………………. 64
US 84 South Bound Over Rio Tesuque………………………………………….. 71
Bridge 9310, US 84, South Bound (S. Tesuque Exit)…………………………… 71
Bridge 8942, US 84 Overpass at NM 502……………………………………….. 74
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM FIELD EVALUATION…….. 77
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………….............. 82
Recommended Field Trials…………………….………………………………… 85
REFERENCES………………………………………………………….................. 90

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Contributing Factors to “The Bump” (Briaud, et al (2))……………… 7
Table 2. Methods to Minimize “the Bump” (Briaud, et al (2))………………… 15
Table 3. Approach Slab Dimensions by State (Hoppe, (5))……………………. 18
Table 4. State Backfill Material Specifications for Approach Slabs (Hoppe, 5). 19
Table 5. State Compaction Specifications for Approach Slabs (Hoppe (5))…... 20
Table 6. Compaction Requirements at Abutment (Briaud, et al (2))…………... 21
Table 7. New Mexico Bridges with Concerns About “the Bump”…………….. 27
Table 8. Experimental Design for Bridge Abutments on Washington Street 86
Bridge………………………………………………………………….

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Causes of "the Bump" (Briaud et al. (2))……………………………... 5
Figure 2. Bridge Approach Settlement Problems by State (Hoppe (5))………… 6
Figure 3. Range of Most Erodible Soils (after Briaud, et al (2), reproduced 9
from White, et al (3))………………………………………………….
Figure 4. Range of Most Erodible Soils with Typical Quality Soil Types and 10
New Mexico Base Courses …………………………………………...
Figure 5. Approach Slab Settlement Geometry……………………..................... 11
Figure 6. Laboratory Model for Simulating “the Bump” (Seo and Briaud (6) 12
and Seo (7))……………………………………………........................
Figure 7. Approach Slab Joint Details at Pavement Edge (after Briaud, et al (2), 17
reproduced from White, et al (3))…......................................................
Figure 8. Drainage Structure, Left Edge, Big-I North Bound-to West Bound 29
Departure……………………………………………………................
Figure 9. Drainage Structure, Right Edge, Big-I North Bound-to West Bound 29
Departure……………………………………………………………....
Figure 10. Detail Between Barrier Wall and MSE Wall…………………………. 30
Figure 11. North End Approach, Bridge No. 9135, US 550……………………... 31
Figure 12. North End Approach (Note Cracking and Evidence of Pressure 31
Grouting)……………………………………………………………....
Figure 13. Estimate of South Bound Approach Slab Settlement, Bridge No. 9135 32
Figure 14. Use of Rip-Rap for Erosion Control on Bridge No. 9135…………….. 33
Figure 15. Example Drainage Structure at Bridge No. 9135…………................... 33
Figure 16. South Bound Departure, I-25 at Arroyo Tonque……………………... 35
Figure 17. Bump on South Bound Departure, I-25 at Arroyo Tonque…………… 35
Figure 18. Cracking in Wheel Paths of South Bound Departure, I-25 at Arroyo 36
Tonque………………………………………………………………....
Figure 19. Poorly Maintained Joint Between Deck and Approach Slab (Bridge 37
No. 8375)………………………………………………………………
Figure 20. Drainage Adjacent to Abutments and Approach Slabs at Arroyo 38
Tonque………………………………………………………………....
Figure 21. Settlement at West Bound Departure Slab, Bridge No. 6554………… 39
Figure 22. Evidence of Settlement Between Abutment and Embankment at 39
Bridge No. 6554……………………………………………………….
Figure 23. Additional Evidence of Settlement Between Abutment and 40
Embankment at Bridge No. 6554……………………………...............
Figure 24. East Bound Approach Slab on Bridge No. 6553……………………… 40
Figure 25. Movement at Right Approach Abutment on Bridge No. 6553……….. 41
Figure 26. Cavity Under Concrete Facing on Abutment on Bridge No. 6553…… 42
Figure 27. Concrete Embankment Facing Movement Relative to Right 42
Departure Abutment on Bridge No. 6553……………………………..
Figure 28. Approach Slab, Bridge No. 8335, Exit 16, West Gallup……………... 43
Figure 29. Lateral Drop Off at Edge of Approach Slab on Bridge No. 8335…….. 44
Figure 30. Joint Concrete Embankment Facing Against Vertical Bridge Fascia 44
(Bridge No. 6553)…………………………………..............................

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

Figure 31. Watertight Median Between Bridges at Exit 16……………………… 45

Figure 32. Departure Slab on Bridge No. 8336 (East Bound, West Gallup)........... 46
Figure 33. Approach Slab on Bridge No. 8336 (East Bound, West Gallup)……... 46
Figure 34. North Bound Approach Slab on NM 217 at I-40…………................... 48
Figure 35. Excessive Settlement on North Bound Approach on NM 217……….. 48
Figure 36. Settlement at North Bound Approach Slab, NM 217………………… 49
Figure 37. Embankment Subsidence and Approach Settlement, South End 50
Departure……………………………………………………………....
Figure 38. South Bound Approach, NM 217…………………………………….. 50
Figure 39. Approach Slab Joint, NM 217………………………………………… 51
Figure 40. North Bound Departure Slab, NM 217…………………….................. 51
Figure 41. North End “Bump”, NM 217 at I-40………………………………….. 52
Figure 42. Settlement at Northeast End of NM 217 Bridge at I-40………………. 53
Figure 43. West Bound Approach, Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd………………. 55
Figure 44. East Bound Departure, Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd……………….. 55
Figure 45. West Bound Approach Slab with Evidence of Alkali-Silica Reactivity 56
(ASR)………………………………………………………………….
Figure 46. Concrete Embankment Protection on Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd... 56
Figure 47. Drainage Barrier Between Bridge Barrier Wall and MSE Wall……… 57
Figure 48. Damaged Approach Slab Joint Caused by ASR……………………… 59
Figure 49. Area Between Bridge MSE Wall and Bridge Barrier Wall…………... 59
Figure 50. MSE Wall, Paseo del Norte at I-25, West Abutment…………………. 60
Figure 51. North Bound Approach on Pennsylvania Street Over I-40…………… 60
Figure 52. Approach Slab Joint on Pennsylvania Street Bridge Over I-40………. 61
Figure 53. Concrete Slope Protection with Drainage Gutter…………................... 62
Figure 54. Positive Drainage Control at Base of Concrete Slope Protection…….. 62
Figure 55. South Bound Departure Slab, Bridge No. 9311………………………. 65
Figure 56. South Bound Approach Slab (note cracking and slab jacking)……….. 65
Figure 57. South Bound Departure Slab (note slab jacking)……………............... 66
Figure 58. Concrete Slope Protection on Bridge No. 9311………………………. 66
Figure 59. South Bound Approach Slab, Bridge No. 9312………………………. 67
Figure 60. South Bound Departure Slab, Bridge No. 9312………………………. 67
Figure 61. South Bound Approach Slab, Bridge No. 9309………………………. 68
Figure 62. Mulch Embankment Erosion Control, Bridge No. 9309……………… 68
Figure 63. South Bound Departure at Opera Drive (US 84)……………………... 69
Figure 64. South Bound View of Bridge at Exit 168 (US 84)…………………… 69
Figure 65. Drainage Channel on Embankment at Exit 168 (US 84)……………... 70
Figure 66. South Bound Lanes Over Rio Tesuque (US 84)……………………… 72
Figure 67. Gabion Erosion Control at Rio Tesuque (US 84)……………….......... 72
Figure 68. Bridge 9310, US 84, South Bound (S. Tesuque Exit)………………… 73
Figure 69. Concrete Slope Protection on Bridge No. 9310………………………. 73
Figure 70. North Bound Approach System, US 84 at NM 502……………........... 75
Figure 71. Watertight Backfill Between Barrier Wall and Bridge Fascia………... 75
Figure 72. Drop Inlet, Bridge No. 8942 Over NM 502…………………………... 76

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

Figure 73. Example of Abutment with Corbel…………………………………… 85

Figure 74. Control Abutment #2, North End, Washington St. Bridge…………… 88
Figure 75. Experimental Abutment #1, South End, Washington St. Bridge……... 88
Figure 76. Submerged Approach Slab System (Hoppe (5))……………………… 89

x
 INTRODUCTION

The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) Bridge Section in conjunction with

various NMDOT district engineers have documented settlement issues with bridge approach

slabs, i.e., the ubiquitous “bump at the end of the bridge,” as a pressing maintenance, safety,

construction and design issue. Briaud, Maher, and James (1) state:

“The bump at the end of the bridge is a common but complex problem that

involves a dizzying range of design factors, including soil settlement in

embankments, approach fill material, abutment foundation type, abutment type,

structure, type, joints, approach slab, paving and construction methods.”

They further claim that bridge approach slab problems affect approximately 25% of U.S.

bridges (about 150,000 structures nationwide) and at least $100 million is spent every year on

repairs dealing with this issue (1997 dollars). Briaud, et al (2) claim the cost to Texas caused by

approach slab distress is $7 million (2002 dollars). Based on population proportions, the author

estimates the cost in New Mexico to be approximately $750,000 (2005 dollars).

White, et al (3) state that bridge approach settlement and the formation of the bump is a

common problem drawing considerable resources for maintenance, creating a negative

perception in the minds of transportation users. They define the term “bridge approach,” not just

in terms of the approach slab alone, but in terms of a more holistic definition as the area from the

abutment to a significant distance (about 100 feet) away from the bridge structure (abutment).

This definition recognizes that the backfill and embankment regions beyond the approach slab

can be significant contributors to settlements in the bridge approach region. Furthermore,

attention to design, construction, and quality control-quality assurance (QA/QC) is just as

important in this region as the region in close proximity to the approach slab itself.
 The bridge approach settlement issue, i.e., “the bump,” is of interest to the New Mexico

Department of Transportation (NMDOT) because of maintenance costs and liability issues. An

improperly designed or constructed approach can require expensive modifications after the fact

such as mud jacking, soil modification, mill and inlay of hot mix asphalt (HMA), surface

grinding and treatments, or even complete replacement of the approach system. Liability issues

are concerned with damage to the vehicle chassis caused by “the bump” or even the potential for

vehicular crashes.

2
 LITERATURE REVIEW WITH DISCUSSION

New Mexico is not the only state that has expressed concern about “the bump at the end of the

bridge.” An early study sponsored by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(NCHRP) was conducted by Wahls (4). Wahls lists the following fundamental causes for “the

bump,”

1) time-dependent consolidation of the embankment foundation (natural soil),

2) time-dependent consolidation of the approach embankment,

3) poor compaction of abutment backfill (caused by restricted access of standard

compaction equipment),

4) erosion of soil at the abutment face, and

5) poor drainage of the embankment and abutment backfill.

Figure 1 is a schematic (after Briaud, et al (2)) of the cross-section of a bridge abutment

(e.g., on pile foundations) including the embankment foundation soil (natural soil), the approach

embankment (and backfill), the abutment face embankment, the approach slab, and the approach

sleeper slab. Consistent with Wahls (4), note that compressibility of the foundation’s natural soil

is of concern (deep-seated foundation problem; difficult to mitigate after the fact), the

embankment and backfill soils above the natural soil that support the approach system, i.e., the

approach slab, the sleeper slab and the surfacing material before the approach slab, whether

HMA or portland cement concrete (PCC) surfacing. Compressible natural foundation soils (such

as clay, or collapsing soils) can result in long term deformation of the pavement system, before

the bridge abutment, if not properly treated in advance. Compressible embankment and backfill

materials under and in front of the approach system can result in long term settlements as well.

This can be caused by poor material selection of the embankment and backfill materials, and also

3
because of poor compaction control (i.e., low density, resulting in a highly deformable

embankment mass). Poor compaction can also be caused, as Wahls (4) notes, by limited access

or difficult access within the confined working space behind the bridge abutment. Moisture

sensitive materials may be problematic as well (expansive soils and soils sensitive to

freeze-thaw).

Note in Figure 1 that erosion of embankment fill and erosion under the approach slab and

approach system can lead to settlement problems at the approach slab. Furthermore, slope

stability of the embankment system can lead to settlement of the approach system, too. Other

mechanisms causing the potential “bump” are caused by thermal movements of the bridge

system (integral bridges in particular) and the approach system before the bridge abutment.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, is the design of the approach slab and sleeper slab.

Improper design can lead to structural failure of the approach slab, while improper sleeper slab

geometry can lead to settlement problems as well. Erosion problems can be caused by improper

design of these elements.

Hoppe (5) surveyed the 48 contiguous state DOTs regarding their experience with bridge

approach settlement issues. The map of Figure 2 shows the states’ results regarding the degree

or severity that the states have experienced. Twenty state DOTs claim to have bridge approach

settlement issues, predominantly in the west, north central, and central regions of the country.

Six states claim to have no problems. Interestingly, three of which are New England states

(where one might expect to find freeze susceptible materials), and one is Texas, a state that has

done quite a bit of work on this problem in recent times. Thirteen states state moderate “bump”

problems, all in the midwest, east, or northeast region; one being Iowa, a state that more recently

has claimed significant problems (see White, et al (3)). It is interesting that most of these states

4
might tend to have more problems with “the bump” because of the likelihood of moisture

sensitive soils to exist in these areas. Nine states did not respond to Hoppe’s survey (5). With

33 of 48 (or 69%) of the state DOTs responding with concerns about bridge approach settlement

issues, it is clear that a vast majority view this as a problem of some degree.

Figure 1 Causes of "the Bump" (Briaud et al. (2)).

Briaud, et al (2) surveyed most of the states’ Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and

found, based on 48 states responding, that the most significant factors contributing to “the bump”

at the end of the bridge are those as listed in Table 1. Table 1 displays the top eight factors of a

total of the twenty factors cited by state DOTs. However the eight cited in Table 1 account for

5
68% of the survey citations. This suggests that most of the significant factors are those in

Table 1.

Figure 2 Bridge Approach Settlement Problems by State

(Hoppe (5)).

Based on the survey data shown in Table 1 suggests that many states have found long

term settlement of the natural foundation soils to be the number one cause of “the bump.” One

can only surmise that careful attention in the design, foundation soil evaluation, and treatment of

these soils prior to the construction stage has lead to these long term settlement concerns.

Rankings three, and four in Table 1 are concerned with the quality of the embankment. Poor

backfill and embankment materials can lead to long term settlement problems as well as erosion

caused by water drainage under the approach slab system. For example, Briaud, et al (2) give

soil gradation guidelines for types of soils that are erosion resistant and those that are prone to

erosion. This is clearly shown in Figure 3 where it is clear that a gradation band of material in

the sand size down to silt size material is a bad choice for embankments and backfill unless

suitably protected (e.g., by appropriate drainage design or erosion control systems).

6
 Figure 4 shows the upper erodible band, from Figure 3, along with typical quality

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) soil types as

well as New Mexico Class I and Class II base courses. The base course materials along with the

AASHTO A-1-a material are clearly acceptable and superior to the other materials presented.

Interestingly, the AASHTO A-1-b material appears unacceptable based on the erosion criteria of

Briaud, et al (2). The A-2 material is comparable to the quality base courses shown. While the

A-3 material meets the erosion criteria, it is not a well graded material, hence perhaps useful for

embankment material, but not backfill. All other AASHTO soil types would be unacceptable as

well.

Table 1 Contributing Factors to “The Bump” (Briaud, et al (2))

Ranking Contributing Factor

1 Fill on Compressible Foundation
2 Approach Slab Too Short
3 Poor Fill Material
4 Compressible Fill
5 High Deep Embankment (> 33 ft (10 m))
6 Bad Drainage
7 Severe Erosion
8 Poor Joint Design and Joint Maintenance

Returning to Table 1, the number two ranking by state agencies was an issue with respect

to the design of the approach slab length. Many state DOTs felt that their slabs were too short.

An approach slab that is too short will aggravate “the bump” because it will accentuate the

traveling public’s perception of the bump because of the vehicular response. For simplicity here,

assume a level roadway pavement approach to a bridge, and a level bridge deck. These two

sections of level pavement are connected by the approach slab. The slope of the approach slab is

simply the change in elevation between the beginning of the approach slab (at the sleeper slab)

7
and the bridge abutment divided by the length of the approach slab. Represented in equation

form this slope is:

s f − sa
S= (1)
L

In equation 1, S is the slope of the approach slab, L is the length of the approach slab, and

sf and sa are the settlements of the foundation (embankment and natural soil foundation) and

abutment, respectively. Figure 5 depicts a typical bridge with abutment and approach slab

system. Typically the abutment settlement is approximately zero for a well designed bridge

abutment system. Therefore the slope is driven by the foundation settlement and length of the

approach slab alone. Now the mechanism that gives a vehicle a jolt and the occupant, too, as

they traverse an approach is not just the slope, but the rate of change of slope, or the curvature.

For the simple case here where it was assumed that the pavement and deck were level, the

curvature is simply equal to the slope as defined in Equation 1. Therefore, as the length of the

slab decreases, the slope increases (for a given foundation, embankment, and embankment

depth) resulting in a more severe “bump” for the vehicle and vehicle occupant. Hence, one way

of minimizing “the bump” is to lengthen the approach slab. The question then becomes what

curvature, or slope, is acceptable so as to make “the bump” acceptable. Note that if the

pavement approach and bridge deck are not level the resultant curvature maybe increased or

decreased.

Embankment depth (or height) is number five in Table 1. For a given compressibility of

the embankment or backfill, the foundation settlement (sf) is based on integrating this

compressibility over the entire depth of the embankment. Clearly then, the thicker the

embankment the more the resultant settlement. Hence, a desirable goal is to minimize the

embankment depth when ever possible.

8
 Figure 3 Range of Most Erodible Soils (after Briaud, et
al (2), reproduced from White, et al (3)).

Items six, seven, and eight in Table 1 all relate to drainage and control of water behind

the abutment, under the approach slab, and into or off of the embankment. Proper drainage

design cannot be overemphasized in any civil engineering work, and the bridge approach system

is no exception. Moving water off and away from the bridge deck, bridge approach slab and

pavement approach is necessary for the integrity of this bridge system and its longevity, but also

necessary for the traveling public. Erosion from under the approach slab or off of the

embankment sides or face can lead to approach slab failure, slope instability, and slope

subsidence. Intrusion of water into the embankment or under the approach slab through joints

because of poor design or poor maintenance can lead to erosion and settlement of the bridge

approach system.

Seo and Briaud (6) and Seo (7) approached “the bump” problem from an experimental

laboratory point of view. They designed a circular test track that would very quickly allow for

9
the repeated loading of a bridge approach model. Figure 6 shows a cross-sectional radial view of

their test device. The depth of a soil model (D2) in their experiments can be varied up to a depth

of 12 inches. The width of the test track soil bed is also 12 inches (looking radially into the page

of Figure 6). The outside diameter of the track is 60 inch while the inside diameter is 36 inch.

37.5 mm, 1-1/2 in.

12.5 mm, 1/2 in.

19.0 mm, 3/4 in.

0.150 mm, #100
0.075 mm, #200

9.5 mm, 3/8 in.

0.300 mm, #50

0.600 mm, #30

50.0 mm, 2 in.

1.18 mm, #16

2.36 mm, #8

4.75 mm, #4
100

90 Gradation Specifications
Select AASHTO Soil Types
80 NMDOT Base Courses
70
A-1-a
Percent Passing

60 Erodible
A-1-b
50
A-3
40
A-2
30

20 Class I B.C.

10 Class II B.C.

0
-1.124938737 -0.624938737 -0.124938737 0.375061263 0.875061263 1.375061263
Sieve Size, mm

Figure 4 Range of Most Erodible Soils with Typical Quality Soil Types and
New Mexico Base Courses.

Using dimensional similitude they were able to derive numerous “pi” terms using

Buckingham Pi theory based on the following assumed functionality for predicting the sleeper

slab displacement along the length of the sleeper slab (note that sf is the specific case of the

displacement at the sleeper slab location ),

δ = (W , E1I1, D1 , L, E2 , D2 ,V , N ) (2)

10
 Figure 5 Approach Slab Settlement Geometry.

In Equation 2, the independent variables are as follows:

1) W is the weight of the vehicle traversing the test bed of the circular test track (W=mg;

mass of vehicle times the acceleration due to gravity),

2) E1 and E2 are the modulus of elasticity of the pavement approach slab material and

embankment material, respectively,

3) the product E1I1 is the stiffness of the approach slab, where,

4) I1 is the moment of inertia of the approach slab cross-section (per unit width), (i.e., the

slab stiffness),

5) L is the approach slab length,

6) D1 and D2 are the slab thickness and the depth of the embankment material, respectively,

7) V is the vehicle speed traversing the model track, and

8) N is the number of repetitive loads caused by the model vehicle traversing the track

11
 The results of this laboratory model showed the most important contributing factors to

“the bump” were as follows:

1) number of cycles of loading (N) over the approach slab is proportional to the increase in

“the bump”,

2) shorter approach slabs result in higher displacements of the approach slab,

3) inherently stiffer soils that are more highly compacted result in reduced deflections of the

approach slab,

4) the vehicle velocity has an effect on the increase on the magnitude of “the bump,”

5) weight of the vehicle traversing “the bump” relates to the eventual magnitude of “the

bump” settlement.

Figure 6 Laboratory Model for Simulating “the Bump” (Seo and Briaud (6) and Seo (7)).

Summarizing Seo’s efforts (6, 7), there are several factors affecting “the bump” at the end of

the bridge. The number of cycles is paramount in the degree of settlement in the bridge approach

system. Soils are inherently viscoelastic and will creep over time with the number of load

cycles. The effect of repeated cycles can be minimized by using competent embankment and fill

12
materials that exhibit minimal viscous effects (for example non-plastic soils, or soils of low

plasticity index (PI). The Young’s modulus of the soil is of extreme importance. Select

materials for embankment and backfill are necessary and must be compacted to proper density

and moisture content to meet specifications. The proper approach slab and design are required to

minimize “the bump.” This includes an adequate length and structural thickness to mitigate the

vertical acceleration of a traversing vehicle caused by high curvature from pavement-to-approach

slab-to-bridge deck. The weight of the vehicle is directly related to the settlement; this a

common understanding of any deformable body or mass (e.g., Hooke’s law). Along with the

viscous nature and higher vehicle weight, one can expect increased deformations under the

approach slab. Lastly, vehicle velocity causes additional loading (dynamic) on the approach slab

system because of viscous effects, but also because of increased curvature of the bridge deck

approach with time. In conclusion it seems that the work of Seo (6, 7) has confirmed many of

the effects noted by DOTs in the survey of Briaud, et al (2) and summarized in Table 1.

Briaud, et al (2) further pose the question to the various DOTs about their methods for

minimizing “the bump” all of which appear to be methods before the fact, including proper

design, material specifications, and good conduction practices in conjunction with quality

assurance-quality control (QA/QC). It is interesting to note that many of the causes of “the

bump” mentioned in Table 1 can be easily mitigated in a converse fashion (i.e., the antidotes in

Table 1 are quite well listed in Table 2). Of the 19 methods for minimizing “the bump” from

Briaud’s survey, 79 % of the responses are those listed in Table 2.

Again as one looks through the literature cited so far, one sees some very common

threads. Quality embankment and materials are necessary to minimize settlements caused by

repeated loadings. Such materials tend to be non-viscous and are much more free draining

13
materials. These materials must be properly compacted in accordance with the specifications.

During the design phase one can conclude that the depth of embankment and fill should be

minimized were practical to mitigate settlement. Further more, the length of slab should be

lengthened and stiffened to minimize “the bump” caused by excess vertical curvature on the

approach.

Hoppe (5) surveyed the various DOTs in 1999. Of thirty-eight DOTs that responded to

the question, “Are approach slab settlements a significant problem?” Thirty-two (84%)

responded yes or moderate (21 yes, 11 moderate). New Mexico responded in the affirmative.

Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Texas, and Vermont all responded in the negative. When

asked about the advantages of using approach slabs, 30 of 37 (81 %) states responding cited

improved smoothness while 15 of 37 (41 %) mentioned reduction of impact loads on the

approach system. Nine DOTs mentioned a desire for uniform settlement of the approach slab

(9/37 = 24 %). The above three issues are all tied to the issue of high curvature on the approach

caused by excess settlement, assumedly caused by poor embankment material specifications and

QA/QC as well as the length of approach slab. The use of a properly designed approach slab

was mentioned by six DOTs to aid in drainage control. Three mentioned lower maintenance

costs, while two stated that approach slabs have no advantage (Kentucky and Maryland).

Conversely, the disadvantages to using approach slabs were higher initial costs (17 of 23

respondents), while 12 of 23 mentioned higher maintenance costs in contrast to the three

agencies that mentioned lower maintenance costs above. New Mexico did not respond to this

question posed by Hoppe (5).

Thirty-one of 36 (86 %) responding DOTs use approach slabs on over 50 % of their

interstate bridge system, 30 of 36 (84 %) on over 50 % their primary system, while only 17 of 36

14
(47 %) use them on over 50 % their secondary route system. New Mexico claimed to use bridge

approach slabs on 80 % across their entire route system.

Table 2 Methods to Minimize “the Bump” (Briaud, et al (2))

Ranking Mitigating Factor
1 Embankment on Strong Soil Foundation
2 Strong and Long Enough Approach Slab
3 Well Compacted or Stabilized Fill Material
4 Good Fill (Well Graded)
5 Good Drainage
6 Shallow Embankment (< 10 ft (3 m))
7 Good Construction Practice and Inspection
8 Adequate Tine Between Placement of Fill and Pavement

For bridges with conventional abutments, 14 responding states use approach slabs, while

two do not. For integral abutment bridges, 18 DOTs claim to use approach slabs, 8 do not use

them. For the 38 and 37 states responding, respectively, to this question, it appears that many

states may feel it is unnecessary to use approach slabs for conventional bridges than for integral

bridges, on the other hand it appears that 8 are adamant in not using them for integral bridges

where as only two do not use them for conventional bridges (Kentucky and Maryland said no to

both conventional and integral types). High volume traffic was cited as a compelling reason for

incorporating approach slabs in both conventional and integral bridges. Other reasons cited were

pavement type, expected settlement, and height of embankment, all of which can be contributing

factors to “the bump.” New Mexico uses approach slabs for both conventional and integral

abutment type bridges.

Table 3 from Hoppe (5) presents typical approach slab dimensions for the various states

surveyed. Slab lengths vary from a low of 13 ft (Kansas) to a high of 40 ft (Louisiana). The

average length based on the tabulated data is 22 ft. Note that New Mexico’s length is 15 ft., well

15
below the average (only Kansas has shorter approach slabs). Slab thickness varies between 8 in.

and 18 in.; clearly, this thickness is largely dependent on the length of the slab and other

structural and foundation considerations. The last column in Table 3 shows the width of the

approach slab, i.e., whether the slab is only as wide as the paving lanes, or runs from

curb-to-curb. Here curb-to-curb is the width of the bridge decking (width between bridge

guardrails, or barriers). A majority of the responses favored the curb-to curb design including

New Mexico. Another important aspect of encouraging curb-to-curb design is for erosion

control and effective drainage of water away from the bridge structure and approach slab system.

Figure 7(a) (after Briaud, et al (2), reproduced from White, et al (3)) depicts a poorly designed

approach slab that will allow water into the backfill and embankment materials promoting

erosion and weakening of these granular materials. Figure 7(b) shows a system that will prevent

infiltration into the soils below the approach slab (this approach is commonly one used in New

Mexico for mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall systems). Stewart (8) suggests that the

pavement should even be placed cantilever over the wingwalls to further mitigate infiltration

below the approach slab. In other words the pavement (or approach slab) should be sandwiched

between the barrier walls and wingwalls in Figure 7.

Table 4 from Hoppe (5) presents state backfill material specifications per Hoppe’s survey

in 1999. A number of states use the same material specifications for both of their backfill

material and their embankment material. However, most states have a different requirement for

the backfill material on top of the embankment or the material adjacent to the abutment wall.

Thirty-three percent (13/39) have a fineness requirement such that less than 15 % material is

finer than the # 200 sieve (75 μm). Perusing the miscellaneous comments in the last column one

will note that the typical backfill material and, assumedly, in some cases the embankment is a

16
porous granular material. Note that Iowa allows for the use of geogrid and Wyoming requires

the use of fabric reinforcement. Since the time of Hoppe’s survey (5), New Mexico now requires

A-1-a or granular base course for the backfill material.

Figure 7 Approach Slab Joint Details at Pavement Edge (after

Briaud, et al (2), reproduced from White, et al (3)).

Table 5 displays the compaction specifications by state as surveyed by Hoppe (5). For

most states the nominal loose lift thickness prior to compaction is 8 in. (except Connecticut,

Kentucky, and New York which base the thickness on the final compacted lift thickness). The

typical dry density requirement is 95 % of maximum standard proctor density. Note that seven

out of thirty-nine (18 %) respondents indicate using compaction requirements greater than 95 %.

It is interesting to note that of these seven states, two responded to Hoppe’s initial question of

“Are approach slab settlements a significant problem?” (see Figure 2 (5)) with no answers

(Arizona and New Hampshire) and three with answers of moderate (Connecticut, Florida, and

Maryland), suggesting that increased compaction effort may be significant. New Mexico did not

respond to Hoppe’s survey for Table 5. However, New Mexico requires 8 inch loose lifts

compacted to 100 % of standard proctor density.

17
Table 3 Approach Slab Dimensions by State (Hoppe, (5))

Length (ft) Thickness (in) Width Limited

State Average Average To
AL 20 9 Pavement
a a
AZ 15 N/A N/A
CA 20 12 Curb-to-Curb
a a
DE 24 N/A N/A
FL 20 12 Curb-to-Curb
GA 25 10 Curb-to-Curb
IA 20 11 Pavement
a
ID 20 12 N/A
IL 30 15 Curb-to-Curb
a a
IN 20.5 N/A N/A
KS 13 10 Curb-to-Curb
a
KY 25 N/A Curb-to-Curb
LA 40 16 Curb-to-Curb
ME 15 8 Curb-to-Curb
a a
MA N/A 10 N/A
MN 20 12 Pavement
a
MS 20 N/A Curb-to-Curb
a
MO 25 12 N/A
NV 24 12 Curb-to-Curb
a
NH 20 15 N/A
a
NJ 25 18 N/A
a
NM 15 N/A Curb-to-Curb
NY 17.5 12 Curb-to-Curb
ND 20 14 Curb-to-Curb
a
OH 22.5 14.5 N/A
OK 30 13 Curb-to-Curb
OR 25 13 Curb-to-Curb
a
SD 20 9 N/A
a
TX 20 10 N/A
a a
VT 20 N/A N/A
VA 24 15 Pavement
WA 25 13 Pavement
a
WI 20.5 12 N/A
WY 25 13 Curb-to-Curb
a
Average 22.0 12.3 N/A
a
Standard Deviation 5.1 2.3 N/A

a
N/A: Information not available or not applicable

18
Table 4 State Backfill Material Specifications for Approach Slabs (Hoppe, 5)
Same/Different % Pasing
State from Regular No. 200 Sieve Miscellaneous
Embankment 75 μm
AL Same --- a A-1 to A-7
AZ Different --- a No Comments
CA Not Stated <4 Compacted Pervious Material
CT Different <5 Pervious Material
DE Different --- a Borrow Type C
FL Same --- a A-1,A-2-4 through A-7 (lLiquid Limit < 50)
GA Same --- a Georgia Class I, II, or III
ID Not Stated --- a A Yielding Material
IL Different --- a Porous, Granular
IN Different <8 No Comments
IA Different --- a Granular; Can Use Geogrid
KS Not Stated --- a Granular, flowable, or light weight allowed
KY Not Stated < 10 Granular
LA Not Stated --- a Granular
ME Different < 20 Granular Borrow
MA Different < 10 Gravel Borrow Type B, MI.03.0
MI Different * <7 * Top 0.9 m (3 ft) Different; Granular Material Class II
MN Not Stated < 10 Granular, Fairly Clean
MS Different --- a Sandy or Loamy, Non-Plastic
MO Not Stated --- a Approved Material
MT Different <4 Pervious
NE Not Stated --- a Granular
NV Different --- a Granular
NH Same < 12 No Comments
NJ Different <8 Porous Fill (Soil Aggregate I-9)
NM Same --- a No Comments
NY Not Stated < 15 < 30 % Magnesium Sulfate Loss
ND Different --- a Graded Mix of Gravel and Sand
OH Same --- a Can Use Granular Material
OK Different * --- a * Granular Just Next to Backwall
OR Different --- a Better Materials
SC Same --- a No Comments
SD Varies * --- a * Different for Integral Bridges; Same for
TX Same --- a No Comments
VT Same --- a Granular
VA Same --- a Porous Backfill
WA Not Stated --- a Gravel Borrow
WI Different <15 Granular
WY Different --- a Fabric Reinforced
a
No specification or none cited

19
Table 5 State Compaction Specifications for Approach Slabs (Hoppe (5))
Loose Lift
%
State Thickness Miscellaneous
Compaction
(in.)
AL 8 95 No Comments
AZ 8 100 No Comments
CA 8 95 * *For Top 30 inch
CT 6* 100 * Compacted Lift Indicated
DE 8 95 No Comments
FL 8 100 No Comments
GA 100 No Comments
ID 8 95 No Comments
IL 8 95 * * For Top; Remainder Varies with Embankment Depth
IN 8 95 No Comments
IA 8 None * * One Roller Pass per inch Thickness
KS 8 90 No Comments
KY 6* 95 * Compacted Lift Indicated; Moisture +2 % / -4 % of Optimum
LA 12 95 No Comments
a
ME 8 --- At or Near Optimum Mositure
MD 6 97 * * For Top 12 inch; Remainder is 92 %
MA 6 95 No Comments
MI 9 95 No Comments
MN 8 95 No Comments
MS 8 --- a No Comments
MO 8 95 No Comments
MT 6 95 At or Near Optimum Mositure
NE 95 No Comments
NV 95 No Comments
NH 12 98 No Comments
NJ 12 95 No Comments
NY 6* 95 * Compacted Lift Indicated
a
ND 6 --- No Comments
a
OH 6 --- No Comments
OK 6 95 No Comments
OR 8 95 * * For Top 36 inch; Remainder is 90 %
SC 8 95 No Comments
SD 8 - 12 * 97 * 8 inch for embankment; 12 inch for bridge end backfill
a
TX 12 --- No Comments
VT 8 90 No Comments
VA 8 95 + or - 20% of Optimum Moisture (i.e., percent of percent moisture)
WA 4* 95 Top 24 inches Are 4 inch Lifts; Remainder are 8 inch Lifts
WI 8 95 * * Top 6 ft, Within 200 ft of Abutment; Remainder is 90 %
WY 12 * --- a * Use of Reinforced Geotextile Layers

a
No specification or none cited; NM did not respond, see p. 17 (herein) for NM requirements

20
 Table 6 from Briaud, et al (2) is abutment compaction. Here, as for Hoppe (5), Briaud’s

survey shows that most states use 8 in. loose lifts for their backfill. Most states use 95 % criteria

for their compaction control, most of which is standard proctor or a standard state method. A

few states specify modified proctor specifications; 95 % for Colorado, New Hampshire, and

Rhode Island. Recall that these three states responded to Hoppe’s survey (5) with “no response”,

or only moderate approach slab problems. Of the 13 states listed in Table 6, a total of 9

responded with no, moderate, or no response (Arkansas and Colorado), while four responded in

the affirmative to having approach slab issues (California, Missouri, Ohio, and South Carolina).

Note there are some discrepancies between Table 5 and Table 6. Arizona claims only 95 %

compaction in Table 5 versus 100 % in Table 6. In Table 5 the stated values for New Hampshire

are 12 in. lifts and 98 % compaction, but in Table 6 they are 8 in. and 95 %, respectively. Ohio’s

compaction requirement in Table 6 is 98 to 102 %, while South Carolina’s lift thickness is

reduced to 6 in. State specifications may have changed slightly in the interim of Briaud’s (2)

work and Hoppe’s (5), thus explaining these modest differences.

Table 6 Compaction Requirements at Abutment (Briaud, et al (2))

State Maximum Loose Lift Thickness, in. Relative Compaction
AZ 8 95% Standard Proctor
AR 4 95% Standard Proctor
CA 8 95% State Test Method Proctor
CO 6 95% Modified Proctor
CT 6 100% Modified Proctor
DE 8 95% State Test Method
ME 8 98% State Test Method
MI 8.8 95% State Test Method
MO Not Specified 95% Standard Proctor
NH 8 95% Modified Proctor
OH Not Specified 98% - 102% Standard Proctor
RI 10 95% Modified Proctor
SC 6 95% State Test Method

21
 LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Wahls (4) emphasizes the importance of an adequate subsurface investigation for any bridge

approach system to be successful. This investigation should be integrated with the subsurface

investigation for the bridge structure. Such an investigation must incorporate adequate

information on depth, thickness, and classification of all soil strata. The strength,

compressibility, and permeability of critical strata are paramount information. This subsurface

investigation should be accomplished by a geotechnical engineer in complete cooperation with

the bridge engineer for the project. The AASHTO subsurface investigation manual (9) provides

guidelines for drilling and sampling along the bridge structure and approach slab areas.

Analysis of the foundation behavior in terms of compression and stability must be

considered for any bridge structure and its associated bridge approach system. Settlement

analysis, based on the laboratory information gleaned from the soil samples taken during the

subsurface investigation, is used to compute anticipated settlements in the natural soil foundation

material and in the embankment material. The applied loads for analysis are those contributed

by the self weight of the soil structure and that of the bridge structure and pavement system.

Consideration must be given to both compressible clay soil foundations and cemented collapsible

soil types.

Stability analysis of the soil foundation and embankment caused by applied loads is

necessary, as these loads can induce lateral failure in either or both soil structural elements.

Wahls (4) suggests the following techniques for foundation improvement of the natural

foundation soils when the subsurface and geotechnical analysis call for such improvement (some

of these may also be advantageous for improvements of the embankment system approaching the

bridge abutment).

22
 1) Removal and replacement,

2) In-situ densification by one of the following methods:

a. Precompression (e.g., using future embankment),

b. Temporary surcharges,

c. Vertical drains (drain wicks),

d. Dynamic compaction,

e. Compaction piles (vibroflotation),

3) Reinforcement methods using one of the following:

a. Stone columns,

b. Lime columns,

c. Embankment piles (spaced along bridge approach system

Briaud (2) notes in his concluding remarks that “the bump” tends to be more severe when

one or more of the following conditions exist: 1) high (deep) embankment, 2) abutment on piles,

3) high average daily traffic (ADT), 4) existence of compressible natural soil foundation, 5) high

intensity rain events, 6) extreme temperatures (particularly a concern with integral abutments),

and 7) steep approach gradients.

Based on the above conclusions and his survey of many state DOTs, Briaud (2) makes

the following recommendations for best practice with regard to the design of bridge approach

systems:

1) Treat “the bump” at the end of the bridge as a stand-alone design issue with

prevention as a design goal.

2) Assign the above design goal responsibility to an engineer.

23
 3) Stress teamwork and “open-mindedness” toward achieving this design goal amongst

all engineering staff involved (bridge engineering, geotechnical engineering,

pavement engineering, construction and maintenance engineering).

4) Perform proper settlement analysis of all soil structural elements (natural soil

foundation and embankment materials) in order to estimate long term settlement of

bridge and approaches.

5) Design approach slab based on this settlement analysis.

6) Provide for adequate expansion and contraction between the bridge structure and the

approach system.

7) Incorporate properly designed drainage and erosion protection systems for the bridge,

bridge abutment, and bridge approach system.

8) Use and enforce proper specifications.

9) Use knowledgeable inspectors for the job, especially for the geotechnical aspects.

10) Inspections of joint details, grade specifications, geotechnical aspects, and drainage

are critical.

Briaud (2) further suggests a criterion for the maximum slope of Equation 1 as follows:

s f − sa 1
S= ≤ (3)
L 200

or rearranging,

L ≥ 200(s f − sa ) (4)

For example, if a settlement analysis indicates a differential settlement between the abutment and

the beginning of the approach slab ( s f − sa ) equal to 1.5 in., then the length of the approach slab

must be greater than 300 in., or 25 ft.

24
 Seo, et al (6) and Seo (7) conclude the following based on the literature, laboratory and

field work cited:

1) The main reason for “the bump” is due to settlement of the embankment caused by

weak natural foundation soils or to settlement of the embankment fill itself. Erosion

of voids under the pavement contributes to “the bump,” as well. Abutment

displacement caused by pavement growth, slope instability or temperature change can

contribute to “the bump,” too.

2) “The bump” is more severe for higher (deeper) embankments, abutments on piles,

high ADT, soft compressible natural soils, intense rain, extreme temperature

variations, and steep approach gradients.

3) “The bump” is less severe when an approach slab is used, appropriate fill materials

are required, good compaction and/or stabilization is employed, effective drainage is

incorporated into the design, and good construction practice along with quality

QA/QC are used. A waiting period between fill placement and pavement placement

should be provided, as well.

4) Based on experimental simulation, soil with higher compaction (higher Young’s

modulus) develops less bump at the approach than soils of lower modulus (lower

compaction). In addition, “the bump” was found to increase with vehicle velocity,

vehicle weight, and number of cycles of repetitive loading (i.e., ADT). “The bump”

was found to increase with a decrease in approach slab length.

5) A tolerable “bump” satisfies Equation 3, i.e., a tolerable bump has a slope of 1/200 or

less.

Recommendations from Seo, et al (6), and Seo (7) are as follows:

25
1) Within 100 feet of the abutment, use quality backfill material with a plasticity index

(PI) less than 15, with less than 20 % passing the # 200 sieve (75 μm), and with a

coefficient of uniformity greater than three.

2) Within 100 feet of the abutment, compact the embankment and backfill materials to

95 % of modified proctor density. Also, the use of thinner lifts to obtain density is

recommended.

3) Approach slabs, at a minimum, should be 20 ft in length, and designed to support full

traffic loading in free span (this accounts for any unexpected erosion beneath the slab

of softening of the soil under the slab). The width of the sleeper slab supporting the

approach end of the approach slab should be minimally 5 ft (in order to adequately

prevent bearing failure with the backfill material under the slab).

26
 FIELD EVALUATION OF NEW MEXICO BRIDGE APPROACHES

As part of this project, field evaluation of numerous New Mexico bridges was performed. The

bridges investigated were bridges that NMDOT personnel (primarily RAC members) cited as

having bridge approach settlement issues (“the bump”). Table 7 lists 19 bridges that were

investigated and evaluated during late spring 2005. The author was accompanied by Mr. Virgil

Valdez of the NMDOT Research Bureau during these field evaluations. Each of the bridges will

be discussed sequentially along with photographic documentation in order to provide the reader

with the author’s impression of “the bump” problem, its severity, and root cause.

Table 7 New Mexico Bridges with Concerns About “the Bump”

Bridge
Bridge Location Route No. No. Additional Comments
1 Albuquerque Big-I (I-25/I-40) N/A North-to-West Departure
2 M.P. 29 US 550 9135 North End
3 M.P. 252 I-25 8375 South Bound at Arroyo Tonque
4 M.P. 252 I-25 8376 North Bound at Arroyo Tonque
5 West Gallup I-40 6553 East Bound (over BNSF Railway mainline)
6 West Gallup I-40 6554 West Bound (over BNSF Railway mainline)
7 West Gallup I-40 8335 Exit 16, West Bound
8 West Gallup I-40 8336 Exit 16, East Bound
9 Mountain Valley Rd. NM 217 N/A NM 217 over I-40 (east of Sedillo Exit)
10 Albuquerque Paseo del Norte N/A Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd.
11 Albuquerque Paseo del Norte N/A Paseo del Norte over I-25
12 Albuquerque Pennsylvania St. N/A Over I-40
13 US 84 Corridor US 84 9311 South Bound
14 US 84 Corridor US 84 9312 South Bound, Camel Rock Exit
15 US 84 Corridor US 84 9309 South Bound, Flea Market Exit
16 US 84 Corridor US 84 N/A Opera Drive, Exit 168
17 US 84 Corridor US 84 N/A Over Rio Tesuque
18 US 84 Corridor US 84 9310 South Tesuque Exit
19 US 84 Corridor US 84 8942 Interchange w/ NM 502

27
Big-I, North-to-West Departure

Figure 8 is a view of the reported problem on the Big-I (I-25/I-40 interchange). This drop-inlet

(DI) structure is intruding into the travel lane (see yellow line). It is also abutting up against the

departure slab (an approach slab if you will). Impact loading appears to be problematic because

of the location and the width of this slab. It would appear that this is just a poor design and or

construction detail. This DI should have been positioned farther away from the departure slab

and its width minimized to prevent encroaching on the driving lane. A similar drainage structure

was placed on the opposite side of the driving lane as shown in Figure 9. This DI does not

encroach on the driving lane and is removed from the departure slab (but probably not enough).

Clearly the location and geometry of such structural appurtenances can have a significant

influence on the distress of the pavement and approach slabs in their vicinity.

Figure 10 shows the area between the bridge barrier wall and the mechanically stabilized

earth (MSE) wall that supports the spread foundations for supporting the bridge structure. This

area shows no signs of erosion or drainage problems. It seems that by minimizing the area and

covering it with bituminous HMA is quite an effective solution for these MSE wall structures.

Bridge No. 9135, US 550, M.P. 29

Figure 11 is a view looking from the north bound lanes toward the south bound lanes of the north

end approach slab of Bridge No. 9135 on US 550. There is obvious extreme distress as evident

by the extreme diagonal cracking in this approach slab. Figure 12 is a closer view of the south

bound lanes where it is clear that pressure grouting has been used to “jack the slab” up because

of excessive settlement of the approach slab system. Figure 13 gives an indication of the amount

of settlement based on the movement between the approach barrier system and the bridge barrier

wall. The amount of this settlement based on this figure is approximately 4 inches.

28
Figure 8 Drainage Structure, Left Edge, Big-I North Bound-to West
Bound Departure.

Figure 9 Drainage Structure, Right Edge, Big-I North Bound-to West

Bound Departure.

29
 Figure 10 Detail Between Barrier Wall and MSE Wall.

Based on conversations with the NMDOT geotechnical engineer (Bob Meyers), it would

appear that the cause for the original excessive settlement on this bridge approach slab system

had to do with inadequate subsurface investigation or improper design of the embankment

system based on the subsurface investigation. There is evidence that soft natural soils prone to

consolidation may have existed at this bridge abutment. Appropriate measures were not used to

adequately consolidate these soft soils before construction. Hence, there was long term

settlement after embankment placement and bridge construction. Efforts to mitigate this after the

fact were the use of slab-jacking techniques using high pressure grout.

30
Figure 11 North End Approach, Bridge No. 9135, US 550.

Figure 12 North End Approach (Note Cracking and Evidence of

Pressure Grouting).

31
 Figure 13 Estimate of South Bound Approach Slab Settlement,
Bridge No. 9135.
The lesson from Bridge No. 9135 is to perform an adequate subsurface investigation

along the length of the bridge approaches and bridge itself to allow for the adequate estimation of

potential settlements not only of the bridge, but of the approach slab system. Good geotechnical

information and analysis will tell one what the soils’ response will be to applied loads, and the

physics behind this sound geotechnical analysis will not lie, regardless of schedule and cost

constraints. In this case, an ounce of prevention would easily have been worth a pound of cure.

Figure 14 provides an excellent example of good drainage and erosion control on the

embankment face underneath the bridge. Here rip-rap is effectively used to prevent scour on the

face which could cause erosion under the approach slab and bridge abutments. Figure 15 shows

a DI where one questions why the structure was not butted up against the barrier wall. However,

overall the drainage at Bridge No. 9135 appeared to be quite well designed and functional.

32
Figure 14 Use of Rip-Rap for Erosion Control on Bridge No. 9135.

Figure 15 Example Drainage Structure at

Bridge No. 9135.

33
Bridge No. 8375, I-25, M.P. 252, South Bound

Figure 16 shows the south bound departure end of the bridge at Arroyo Tonque (Bridge

No. 8375. Figure 17 provides a visual of the magnitude of the bump traversing from the bridge

deck onto the departure approach slab system (~1 to 2 in.). This bridge was built in the early to

mid 1980s and it appears that there has been effort in the past to mitigate this bump by placement

of HMA. It appears that the problem with this approach system is one of compressible soils,

either the embankment material, that may have been placed to loosely, or deep-seated

compressibility with the natural soil foundation material. Figure 18 provides additional evidence

that soft soil exists in the embankment because of the cracking of the HMA in the wheel paths

(fatigue caused by excessive deformation). Figure 19 shows the quality of maintenance and

disrepair of the joint between the bridge deck and the approach slab. Maintenance by cleaning

and replacement when necessary is required to prevent stress buildup between the bridge

structure and the approach slab and pavement system. Such stresses can cause damage to the

decking, the abutment, and can cause distortions of the approach slab as well.

Bridge No. 8376, I-25, M.P. 252, North Bound

The north bound bridge (No. 8376) at Arroyo Tonque exhibits essentially the concerns as the

south bound bridge (No. 8375). There is a similar “bump” on the departure end of this bridge.

Poorly maintained joints are evident. The channel of the arroyo below the bridge is lined with

rip-rap which seems to have adequately scouring, erosion, and problems for the approach slab

system. In general the drainage appears quite adequate for these two bridges at Arroyo Tonque.

However, one might question the drainage details laterally adjacent to the abutments and

approach slabs (Figure 20). Here there is lack of an adequate drainage structure to direct runoff

away from the bridge and bridge approach system. More design attention is suggested here.

34
Figure 16 South Bound Departure, I-25 at Arroyo Tonque.

Figure 17 Bump on South Bound Departure, I-25 at Arroyo Tonque.

35
 Figure 18 Cracking in Wheel Paths of South Bound
Departure, I-25 at Arroyo Tonque.

Bridge No. 6554, I-40 West Bound Over BNSF Railway Mainline (W. Gallup)

This bridge shows severe departure slab settlement as shown in Figure 21. In terms of the

severity of “the bump,” this may have been the worst one investigated and evaluated during the

project. Heavy truck traffic undoubtedly contributes to the severity of this bump along with the

age of this bridge (late 70s or early 80s). Figure 22 provides graphical evidence of the

magnitude of settlement between the bridge abutment and the embankment (which includes the

material under the approach slab). Here the concrete covering the embankment face is seen to

have moved vertically approximately 4 to 6 inches relative to the abutment. This embankment is

36
quite deep to allow clearance for the railroad’s freight vehicles. This coupled with perhaps

inadequate compaction or material selection may be a contributing factor to this bump. It’s

possible that there are also some deep-seated foundation problems with the natural soil.

Figure 23 shows additional pictorial evidence of the settlement and subsidence of the

embankment away from the bridge abutment. Here there is about a 2 to 3 inch gap that has

developed between the concrete facing and the abutment which clearly is an avenue for water to

enter and further exacerbate the problem. While not shown here, the joints on this bridge are

poorly maintained and in disrepair.

Figure 19 Poorly Maintained Joint Between Deck

and Approach Slab (Bridge No. 8375).

37
 Figure 20 Drainage Adjacent to Abutments and
Approach Slabs at Arroyo Tonque.

Bridge No. 6553, I-40 East Bound Over BNSF Railway Mainline (W. Gallup)

The east bound bridge (No. 6553) over the BNSF railway mainline in West Gallup has many of

the same issues as the west bound bridge previously discussed. Figure 24 shows the east bound

approach slab which has more modest settlement problems compared to the west bound

departure slab of Bridge No. 6554. Figure 25 shows an extreme amount of vertical relative

movement at the right abutment on the approach end. This relative displacement is on the order

of 6 inches. Note the opening between the concrete embankment facing and the abutment.

38
Figure 21 Settlement at West Bound Departure Slab, Bridge No. 6554.

Figure 22 Evidence of Settlement Between Abutment and

Embankment at Bridge No. 6554.

39
Figure 23 Additional Evidence of Settlement Between Abutment and
Embankment at Bridge No. 6554.

Figure 24 East Bound Approach Slab on Bridge No. 6553.

40
 Figure 25 Movement at Right Approach Abutment on Bridge No. 6553.

Figure 26 shows the lateral magnitude of this opening underneath the concrete facing on

the embankment. The inserted tape measure extends into this cavity almost 150 inches. This

suggests soil movement and perhaps erosion as well. Figure 27 (similar to Figure 23) shows the

lateral movement of the concrete facing away from the right departure abutment. This opening is

on the order of 4 inches, or so. Clearly this is evidence of settlement, or subsidence, and

provides a point of water entry and potential further settlement and erosion problems.

Bridge No. 8335, West Bound I-40 at Exit 16 (W. Gallup)

West bound Bridge No. 8335 at Exit 16 in West Gallup exhibits very modest bumps in the

approach and departure slabs. Figure 28 is a west bound view that showing the approach slab

with a very low magnitude bump. Also note in this figure the excellent placement of the

drainage structure, well away from the approach slab and abutting up to the barrier wall.

41
Figure 26 Cavity Under Concrete Facing on Abutment on
Bridge No. 6553.

Figure 27 Concrete Embankment Facing Movement Relative to Right

Departure Abutment on Bridge No. 6553.

42
 Figure 28 Approach Slab, Bridge No. 8335, Exit 16, West Gallup.

Figure 29 is a close up of the approach slab. This photo shows the minimal magnitude of

the longitudinal bump, however the lateral vertical displacement from the edge of the open

graded friction course (OGFC) is of concern; perhaps this drop off (close to 3 or 4 inches) should

be minimized or tapered farther laterally to the edge of pavement. Figure 30 is a photograph of

the joint between the concrete embankment cover and the vertical fascia of the bridge (note this

is not an MSE wall bridge). The joint here appears to be fairly watertight. Figure 31 presents

the watertight bituminous material placed in the median between the west bound and east bound

bridges at Exit 16.

Bridge No. 8335 overall has minimal bump problems and has very good drainage

features. One drawback, as in previous bridges discussed, is poor maintenance at the joints

between the bridge deck, approach slab, and approach pavement.

43
Figure 29 Lateral Drop Off at Edge of Approach Slab on Bridge
No. 8335.

Figure 30 Joint Concrete Embankment

Facing Against Vertical Bridge Fascia
(Bridge No. 6553).

44
 Figure 31 Watertight Median Between Bridges at Exit 16.

Bridge No. 8336, East Bound I-40 at Exit 16 (W. Gallup)

The approaches and departures for the east bound bridge at Exit 16 in West Gallup are more

severe than those for the west bound side. Figure 32 shows the severity of the departure slab end

of this bridge. The settlement at this joint between the approach slab and the bridge deck is

about 1 in. Note there is evidence of some spalling and subsequent maintenance along the joint.

Figure 33 shows the approach slab looking in a westerly direction. Here there is evidence of

cracking at the diagonal corners and some indications of stress and disrepair along the length of

the joint.

The two bridges at Exit 16 in Gallup are not as bad as other bridges surveyed. The

drainage features appear quite well designed and in general maintained. Maintenance appears

good except for the necessity of joint cleaning. Settlements are likely due to embankment issues

or perhaps vertical alignment between the bridge, approach slab, and pavement.

45
Figure 32 Departure Slab on Bridge No. 8336 (East Bound, West
Gallup).

Figure 33 Departure Slab on Bridge

No. 8336 (East Bound, West Gallup).

46
Mountain Valley Road, NM 217 Over I-40

The Mountain Valley Road Bridge over I-40 is a two lane bridge with a north/south alignment.

This bridge has no access from I-40, and is the sole bridge providing access from NM 333 on the

south to properties north of I-40 between the Sedillo and Edgewood exits. This bridge was

recently widened and is undoubtedly the most problematic of the bridges surveyed in this report.

From a geotechnical standpoint it is classical in what can transpire from design to construction

and QA/QC.

The original design called for widening the embankment along the existing right-of-way

by building a sliver-slope on the east side embankment. This sliver-slope, while not terribly

wide, was considered an adequate solution for widening the approaches and bridge itself.

Another interesting issue was that the contractor for this project was well versed in concrete flat

work but not in bridge construction and the details associated with bridge construction (note that

this bridge was a component of a larger reconstruction and rehabilitation effort on Interstate 40).

The real coups-de-grace for some of the failures to follow was undoubtedly poor quality control

of the embankment. It would appear that poor compaction methods were used with minimal

oversight by inspectors. This embankment control problem lead to instability in the eastern

embankment slope with resultant settlement of the approach slabs. Poor compaction control

underneath the approach slabs and pavement approaches appears to have aggravated the situation

as well.

Figure 34 shows the north bound approach. Note the severe longitudinal cracking in the

HMA pavement and the concrete slab prior to the approach slab itself. Also note the cracking in

the HMA adjacent to the guard rail. A view of the settlement along this guard rail alignment is

shown in Figure 35. Here it is evident that the slope has subsided on the order of 4 in.

47
Figure 34 North Bound Approach Slab on NM 217 at I-40.

Figure 35 Excessive Settlement on North Bound Approach on NM 217.

48
 Figure 36 provides a visual of the amount of settlement at the south approach slab joint

(~1 in.). Figure 37 is similar to Figure 35 showing the south end of the bridge on the west

abutment. Here again is clear evidence of excessive settlement and subsidence at the

embankment and approach slab system. Figure 38 is similar to Figure 34 showing the south

bound approach with similar cracking. Here the crack openings are on the order of 1 inch wide

which is an obvious entry point for water which can cause further softening and compressibility

of the base course and subgrade layers. Figure 39 shows what appears to be an excessively wide

approach slab joint. Such a joint will allow a large volume of compressible material to enter

causing high distress over time as the joint fills tighter and tighter. Figure 40 is the north bound

departure slab system, again showing distresses that were described for the south end of the

bridge. Figure 41 depicts the excessive bump at the north approach slab (in excess of 2 in.).

Figure 36 Settlement at North Bound Approach Slab, NM 217.

49
Figure 37 Embankment Subsidence and Approach Settlement, South
End Departure.

Figure 38 South Bound Approach, NM 217.

50
Figure 39 Approach Slab Joint, NM 217.

Figure 40 North Bound Departure Slab, NM 217.

51
 Figure 41 North End “Bump”, NM 217 at I-40.

Figure 42 shows the relative settlement and subsidence between the approach slab system and

the embankment and approach system foundation. Here the lateral crack has opened

approximately 1-1/2 in., while the vertical relative displacement is about 3 in. Note that the curb

has also moved laterally away from the approach slab system. The crack opening and curb

movement have compromised good drainage features of this bridge system.

Concluding on the NM 217 Bridge, one can clearly point to poor QA/QC practices during

the construction. Probably excessive lift thickness and low relative density are the prime

culprits. The narrow sliver-slope design perhaps should have been avoided by complete removal

of the north and south approach system prior to replacement. This would have avoided any

instability in the embankment. While there is definitely an extreme amount of vertical

movement, additional causes may be attributed to poor vertical alignment between the bridge

approach system (pavement and approach slab) and the bridge deck. Drainage, while perhaps

52
not the best, does not appear to be a real cause of the high levels of distress noted on this bridge.

It is worthwhile noting that the author returned to the site approximately 6 months later and did

not note any significant worsening of the distresses. This suggests that most of the movement

occurred very quickly after reconstruction was complete.

Figure 42 Settlement at Northeast End of NM 217

Bridge at I-40.

Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd.

Paseo del Norte is a limited access expressway connecting Interstate 25 to Coors Boulevard on

the west side of Albuquerque. Hence, the intersection of Paseo del Norte and Coors Blvd. is an

extremely busy center-point interchange. Figure 42 is west looking view of the west bound

53
approach on the west bound bridge of Paseo del Norte. Here it is clear that there is a major

bump attributed to excessive settlement of the embankment (which is quite high for clearance

over Coors Blvd.) or poor vertical alignment of the approach system and the bridge deck, or a

combination of the two.

Figure 43 shows exactly why it is a bad idea not to extend the approach or departure slabs

full width to the bridge barrier wall (recall Figure 7). In this photograph the approach slab has

moved relatively upward to the surrounding HMA material. This requires additional

maintenance along the longitudinal joint as well as the lateral joint. Lack of a full width section

of the approach slab here exacerbates the relative movement; hence the desire to make such slabs

full width. Figure 45 shows the west bound approach slab in more detail showing evidence of

alkali-silica reactivity (ASR). Based on the age of this bridge it is possible that ASR has

developed over time. Expansion stresses from ASR can potentially lead to slab expansion and

distress in the approach slabs, approach joints, and vertical uplift of the slabs and pavement

preceding the approach slabs.

The Paseo del Norte Bridge over Coors Boulevard arguably has some of the best drainage

features of any of the bridges surveyed. Figure 46 shows the concrete slope protection used

along the entire embankment length of the bridge. Examination of this concrete slope protection

found few flaws in terms of its water tightness. Figure 47 provided another example of the

attention to drainage detail. Here the use of HMA between the outer side of the bridge barrier

wall and the inner side of the MSE wall is used effectively to prevent water infiltration into and

under the bridge abutment approach system.

54
Figure 43 West Bound Approach, Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd.

Figure 44 East Bound Departure, Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd.

55
Figure 45 West Bound Approach Slab with Evidence of Alkali-Silica
Reactivity (ASR).

Figure 46 Concrete Embankment Protection on Paseo del Norte at

Coors Blvd.

56
 Figure 47 Drainage Barrier Between Bridge Barrier Wall and MSE
Wall.

Paseo del Norte at Interstate 25 (I-25)

The Paseo del Norte Bridge at I-25 is well known to have had extreme alkali-silica reactivity

(ASR) problems. Besides the structural concrete used for the bridge, the adjacent portland

cement concrete (PCC) paving materials have also exhibited ASR. ASR expansion stresses

caused by ASR expansion can lead to extreme damage at the joints connecting the bridge deck to

the approach slab and the approach slab to the preceding concrete pavement. Such stresses can

cause spalling and resultant crack widening. This is a maintenance problem requiring constant

joint filling with bituminous materials. In addition, if the joint is not periodically filled with joint

57
sealant, then the joint can become filled with compressible materials resulting in further damage

by stress buildup. Figure 48 is a graphic example of ASR and the extreme damage by this

expansion, spalling, and filling with debris. This process can lead to bumps at the end of the

bridge because of potential uplift of the slabs. The compromised joint is also an easy avenue for

the penetration of water into and underneath the base and subgrade materials supporting the

approach slab system. The presence of water will soften these unbound materials, making them

more compressible and prone to settlements.

In contrast to the Paseo bridge at Coors, the Paseo bridge at I-25 does not show the same

degree of drainage detail for the area between the bridge barrier and the MSE wall. Figure 49

shows clearly the vegetation, and assumedly the lack of HMA at this location. This is either a

design detail or a construction detail missed in the field. Figure 50 is the west MSE abutment for

this bridge. Visual perusal of the abutments at Paseo del Norte and I-25 did not show any

evidence of lateral movement or displaced embankment material from the joints between the

panels used to construct the MSE wall. Note that the face of the abutment appears to be quite

vertical and all of the joint openings are quite uniform. Note carefully the presence of ASR in

the concrete element supporting the bridge girders.

Pennsylvania Street Over I-40 (Albuquerque)

The complete reconstruction of the Pennsylvania Street Bridge over I-40 in Albuquerque is of

recent vintage (rebuilt within the last couple of years). For the most part there is very little

evidence of extreme settlement caused by compressible backfill, embankment, natural

foundation soils or displacements caused by instability. The north bound approach view on

Pennsylvania (Figure 51) shows little evidence of a bump. Figure 52 shows the 6 foot straight

edge clearly indicating little or no bump across the approach slab joint.

58
Figure 48 Damaged Approach Slab Joint Caused by ASR.

Figure 49 Area Between Bridge MSE Wall and Bridge Barrier Wall.

59
 Figure 50 MSE Wall, Paseo del Norte at
I-25, West Abutment.

Figure 51 North Bound Approach on Pennsylvania Street Over I-40.

60
 Figure 52 Approach Slab Joint on Pennsylvania Street Bridge Over I-40.

The drainage features on the Pennsylvania Bridge are quite extraordinary. Concrete

slope protection was used on all embankment sides of the abutment as well as the area between

the back of the MSE wall and the base of the spread footing supporting the bridge abutments. In

addition a drainage gutter was constructed to provide adequate drainage away from the base of

the MSE wall. Figure 53 of the southerly abutment shows this excellent concrete slope

protection with the gutter at the top of the MSE wall. The drainage gutter is sloped to allow

drainage around to the base and toe of the lateral embankment. Figure 54 shows this positive

drainage control around the southerly abutment to the base of the northwest toe of the west

embankment.

61
 Figure 53 Concrete Slope Protection with
Drainage Gutter.

Figure 54 Positive Drainage Control at Base of Concrete Slope

Protection.

62
Bridge 9311, US 84, South Bound

A number of bridges along the US 84 corridor between Santa Fe and NM 502 are known to have

had approach slab distresses caused by excessive settlement. The settlement, based on the

author’s understanding, is attributed in large part to compressible foundations soils that were not

adequately prepared in advance of the embankment and bridge construction. These natural soils

were compressible soils for which the geotechnical engineer had recommended consolidation

methods such as vibroflotation or precompression of the natural soil foundation. Unfortunately,

these methods were not performed because of schedule and budgetary constraints. The

following examples along this corridor clearly show how excessive the fix can be after the fact

and how difficult it is to fix a wrong that should have been made right at the beginning based on

solid geotechnical investigative work and analysis.

Bridge No. 9311 is a bridge that experienced approach slab settlement shortly after

construction. As mentioned, this is attributed to deep-seated foundation problems, but it is

possible that some of the settlement is caused by poor compaction control in the embankment as

well. Figure 55 shows the south bound departure slab where a bump is evident in the slab.

Figure 56 shows the south bound approach slab. Here there is evidence of extreme cracking

(caused by settlement) followed at a later time by slab jacking (the yellow areas) using an easily

pumpable grout suitable for this application. Slab jacking was the chosen solution to mitigate the

settlement of the slabs on this bridge and to obtain better vertical alignment between the

approach pavement, approach slab, and bridge abutment.

The drainage features of the bridges along the US 84 corridor are quite excellent.

Figure 58 shows the typical type of concrete slope protection used to remove water away from

the approach slabs, embankments, and abutments. One will note the existence of a vertical crack

63
paralleling the vertical construction joint between the concrete under the bridge face and the

concrete that wraps around to the embankment toe. This cracking is difficult to explain, but was

also noted on other bridges with this detail on the US 84 corridor.

Bridge 9312, US 84, South Bound (Camel Rock Exit)

Figure 59 shows the level of cracking distress in the south bound approach slab of Bridge

No. 9312 again caused by settlement of the foundation soils. Note that slab jacking has already

occurred in this slab. Figure 60 is the south bound departure slab. Here is an indication, based

on the 6 foot level, of how much settlement has occurred based on the difference in slopes of the

bridge deck and the departure slab.

Bridge 9309, US 84, South Bound (Flea Market Exit)

Figure 61 shows a side view of the south bound approach slab on Bridge No. 9309. It is evident

that there is some modest settlement present in this slab. Note the presence of an epoxy seal coat

covered with fine aggregate. It would appear that this finish was applied after slab jacking to

protect the cracks that had developed in the approach slabs and likewise any cracks that

developed in the bridge deck as well. Figure 62 is a good example of embankment erosion

control using a mulch material. As mentioned earlier, the new bridges on the US 84 corridor for

the most part had high quality drainage details.

US 84 South Bound (Opera Drive, Exit 168)

The bridge on south bound US 84 at Exit 168 is clearly a bridge that has undergone extreme

settlements of the approach slabs. Figure 63 is a photograph of the approach slab to this bridge.

Note the numerous locations where slab jacking has taken place. Figure 64 shows the bridge

deck from a south bound view. Note the extensive cracking on the deck. This bridge and

approach slab undoubtedly are waiting for an epoxy sealant coating like that of Bridge No. 9309.

64
Figure 55 South Bound Departure Slab, Bridge No. 9311.

Figure 56 South Bound Approach Slab (note cracking and slab jacking).

65
Figure 57 South Bound Departure Slab (note slab jacking).

Figure 58 Concrete Slope Protection on

Bridge No. 9311.

66
Figure 59 South Bound Approach Slab, Bridge No. 9312.

Figure 60 South Bound Departure Slab, Bridge No. 9312.

67
Figure 61 South Bound Approach Slab, Bridge No. 9309.

Figure 62 Mulch Embankment Erosion Control, Bridge No. 9309.

68
Figure 63 South Bound Departure at Opera Drive (US 84).

Figure 64 South Bound View of Bridge at Exit 168 (US 84).

69
 Figure 65 shows another good example of quality drainage control on the US 84 corridor.

Here a drainage channel is used to remove water from the bridge at Exit 168, and associated

bridge slabs. This photo also shows the effective use of a landscaping aggregate to control

erosion on the embankment. Also note the presence of small native foliage that has been planted

for eventual erosion control and assumedly visual aesthetics.

Figure 65 Drainage Channel on Embankment at

Exit 168 (US 84).

70
US 84 South Bound Over Rio Tesuque

The bridge over the Rio Tesuque (Tesuque River) is probably the least problematic bridge

surveyed on the US 84 corridor, and perhaps the least problematic of the 19 bridges surveyed

during these research project. Figure 66 shows the approach slabs and bridge decking, which

have already been sealed with an epoxy coating and aggregate chips. It is likely that this bridge

had slab jacking treatment like some of the others in this corridor. However, there is no evidence

of distress after the epoxy treatment and no evidence of excessive settlement in the approaches.

Figure 67 shows another excellent example of the efforts made on the US 84 corridor

with respect to drainage control on the bridge, under the bridge and along the embankment to

and from the bridge structure. This figure shows the use of Gabion structures lining the channel

underneath the bridge embankment facing, as well as the lateral embankment. This photograph

is looking upstream. Construction is still ongoing in this photo with the channel lining upstream

under the bridge still not complete. The upstream view is very similar to this photo. The use of

these effective means for erosion control help alleviate embankment damage under the bridge

structure (embankment facing) and laterally along the embankment edges. Such erosion can

contribute to settlements and erosion under the approach slabs, resulting in “the bump.”

Bridge 9310, US 84, South Bound (S. Tesuque Exit)

Bridge 9310, south bound US 84, is another example of a bridge that likely had approach

settlement issues that were subsequently repaired by slab jacking and epoxy coating of the

approach slabs and bridge deck. Figure 68 is a south bound view of this bridge and one can see

evidence of settlement at both the approach and departure slabs. Figure 69 shows the nice

drainage provided by the concrete protection slope. Again note the presence of the vertical crack

parallel to the control joint at the abutment, similar to Bridge No. 9311.

71
Figure 66 South Bound Lanes Over Rio Tesuque (US 84).

Figure 67 Gabion Erosion Control at Rio Tesuque (US 84).

72
Figure 68 Bridge 9310, US 84, South Bound (S. Tesuque Exit).

Figure 69 Concrete Slope Protection on

Bridge No. 9310.

73
Bridge 8942, US 84 Overpass at NM 502

Bridge No. 8942 is an older bridge than the previously described bridges along the US 84

corridor. This US 84 bridge provides an interchange with NM 502 passing underneath. For its

age it appears to have few flaws with the approach and departure slabs. There is no real

evidence of excessive settlement or vertical alignment issues between the pavement, approach

slabs, and bridge decking. Figure 70 shows the worst case which is the north bound approach

system to the approach slab and bridge. Here it appears that some maintenance has been

performed to alleviate perhaps some settlement issues. The author understands that when this

bridge was constructed there was some difficulty obtaining compaction behind the abutment

backwall. The supposed reason for this was caused by access issues with the compaction

equipment.

Figure 71 shows another example of a watertight backfill placed between the bridge

barrier wall and the bridge abutment fascia. Lastly, Figure 72 shows a drop inlet on this bridge.

The DI appears to be too narrow and perhaps would be better suited if it were against the median

barrier.

74
Figure 70 North Bound Approach System, US 84 at NM 502.

Figure 71 Watertight Backfill Between

Barrier Wall and Bridge Fascia.

75
Figure 72 Drop Inlet, Bridge No. 8942 Over NM 502.

76
 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM FIELD EVALUATION

The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from the field evaluation of the 19

New Mexico bridges discussed in the previous section.

1) Geotechnical analysis of the subsurface natural foundation materials must be

performed to insure a firm foundation on to which the subsequent embankment,

abutments, and bridge can be supported. This includes an adequate subsurface

investigation with appropriate laboratory analysis that will provide the necessary

details for estimating the anticipated settlements of the embankment without

foundation soil improvement. If the settlement analysis dictates the necessity for

foundation improvement, it is imperative that this necessity be incorporated into the

design and construction. The future cost of not dealing with such problematic issues

during the initial design and construction will be extremely expensive and in all

likelihood unsatisfactory as compared to doing it right at the beginning. Examples of

such flawed thinking are the recently constructed bridges on the US 84 corridor and

the US 550 bridge at milepost 29.

2) Numerous examples have been cited where there are questions regarding the

adequacy of the embankment and backfill materials used behind the bridge abutment.

In addition, concerns regarding compaction control in these regions are paramount as

are the associated QA/QC. Backfill and embankment materials must be of a

competent nature as described earlier in this report and the compaction effort must

satisfy the minimal requirements for moisture and density in accordance with the

specifications. Low density yields a compressible material which will lead to

settlement under the approach slabs and approach slab pavement. The Mountain

77
 Valley Road clearly shows the importance of a coordinated effort between the

designers, the DOT project managers, the contractor, and the QA/QC personnel

responsible for the specified project. It cannot be overemphasized the importance of

the geotechnical QA/QC effort required for a successful project (from the natural

subsoil to the last lift).

3) MSE walls appear to have fewer problems with approach slab settlement issues than

other types of bridge abutment systems (even with their spread foundations for

support as opposed to piles). This is because of the excellent lateral constraint

provided by the vertical wall system of the MSE and the tie back straps employed that

provide additional stability. With the increased lateral constraint within the MSE

unit, it is easier to achieve compaction density more readily. Also, by nature, MSE

walls usually specify a superior, free-draining, material which is also a contributing

factor to reducing such structures’ propensity to settle behind the abutments. Having

said this, it still imperative that the deep-seated soils are adequately analyzed for

settlement and stability issues of the entire MSE wall unit.

4) Erosion from underneath approach slabs appears not to be near the problem it is in

other states (see for example White, et al (3)). There was only the one case where

this may have been evident in the field survey, and that was the bridge over the BNSF

mainline in Gallup. While there was quite a gap between the concrete slope

protection on this bridge and the underlying soil, it is not clear if this was due to

erosion or perhaps settlement or subsidence of the embankment or a combination.

5) Drainage details for the New Mexico bridges surveyed, in large part, were quite

adequate. Except for the questionable size and location of drop inlets relative to

78
 barrier walls or the end of approach slabs, the drainage designs appeared quite good.

The use of rip-rap where appropriate were noted. It appears that the usage of concrete

slope protection on the embankment faces and sides is increasing within the state

DOT to mitigate erosion and facilitate adequate drainage. Other techniques such as

mulch and landscaping aggregate in these locations appear to work as well. Overall,

it is doubtful that drainage issues are a contributing factor to “the bump” problems

that were identified in this survey. This is also somewhat consistent with the

literature survey conducted which suggested that drainage concerns were down the

list compared to geotechnical issues and approach slab geometry.

6) Maintenance was noted as a problem, particularly with approach slab joints. Such

joints require periodic cleaning and replacement as necessary. Bituminous joint

sealing materials should be applied to damaged joints where applicable in order to

prevent water intrusion and intrusion of compressible materials that can exacerbate

the joint opening and resultant damage to the approach slab system and bridge

decking. While the state DOT now has a much better handle on ASR, ASR in

approach slabs and the bridge deck can cause severe distresses, joint widening, and

further damage to the system. ASR damaged concrete should be promptly addressed

by removal and replacement (for example the Paseo del Norte Bridge at I-25). While

not noted in any photographs, there were a few examples of clogged drainage

structures. All drainage structures on the bridge and bridge approach system require

periodic maintenance and cleanout to insure proper removal of water away from the

structure.

79
 7) Vertical alignment control was mentioned as problematic for quite a few of the

bridges surveyed. The slope change (or curvature) between the approach pavement,

through the approach slab, and onto the bridge deck that causes “the bump” was very

noticeable on, for example, the following bridges:

a. the departure slab on south bound I-25 at Arroyo Tonque,

b. the departure slab on Bridge No. 8336 (Exit 16 in Gallup),

c. the approach slabs on Mountain Valley Road over I-40,

d. the approach slabs of Paseo del Norte at Coors Blvd.,

e. the south bound departure slab on Bridge No. 9312 on US 84.

Such vertical control on the approach and departures can be better controlled by using

the criteria of Equations 3 or 4, satisfying a minimal approach slab length based on an

estimate of embankment settlement. An increase of the DOT state specification from

the current approach slab length of 14 ft to 20 ft as recommended by Seo, et al (6) and

Seo (7) can also be implemented in the absence of any other criteria. Regardless of

the slab length, good construction practice is necessary along with stringent QA/QC

to ensure minimal slope change and a smooth transition through the approach system

onto the bridge deck.

Overall, one might conclude that the bridge approach settlement issue is not as big of a

problem in New Mexico as perhaps in other states. Over time it appears that the NMDOT has

obtained a better grasp of how to deal with this issue. Drainage designs have improved, resulting

in more reliable removal of water. Wingwalls are now more routinely used in bridge approach

systems, thus preventing erosion and providing extra stability for the backfill and embankment

80
materials and a reduction in settlement. The use of a standard approach slab requirements and

length has been implemented (albeit perhaps with a slab length that is too short).

The principal causes noted in the field investigation are common sense issues where good

applied geotechnical analysis is necessary to prevent “the bump.” Good settlement analysis is

required for the natural foundation soils and embankment materials. Based on such analysis,

proactive measures can be made before construction to minimize such anticipated settlements.

Good material selection of embankment and backfill materials is a necessity. This coupled with

excellent quality control of the backfill operations will further minimize any settlement in the

approach slab system foundation.

81
RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on the literature surveyed, the conclusions drawn

from the literature surveyed, and the field observations made of New Mexico Bridges and Bridge

Approach Slabs.

It is imperative that the approach system be treated as a stand-alone design objective, as

recommended by Briaud (2), with the prevention of “the bump” as a design objective. In order

to achieve this objective the following guidelines should be followed:

1) Assign the above design goal responsibility to an engineer.

2) Stress teamwork and “open-mindedness” toward achieving this design goal amongst

all engineering staff involved (bridge engineering, geotechnical engineering,

pavement engineering, construction and maintenance engineering).

3) Perform proper settlement analysis of all soil structural elements (natural soil

foundation and embankment materials) in order to estimate long term settlement of

bridge and approaches.

4) Design approach slab based on this settlement analysis.

5) Provide for adequate expansion and contraction between the bridge structure and the

approach system.

6) Incorporate properly designed drainage and erosion protection systems for the bridge,

bridge abutment, and bridge approach system.

7) Use and enforce proper specifications.

8) Use knowledgeable inspectors for the job, especially for the geotechnical aspects.

9) Inspection of all details is critical, for example joint details, grade specifications,

drainage details, and especially the geotechnical aspects.

82
 Approach slab lengths (L) should satisfy the requirements of Equation 4, viz.,

L ≥ 200(s f − sa ) (4)

where the term in parenthesis is the relative displacement across the approach slab. The

settlement at the beginning of the approach and under the bridge abutment (sa and sf) should be

calculated based on sound geotechnical subsurface investigative methods and subsequent

analysis. Clearly, if the settlements in the natural soil foundation material are excessive then

efforts must be made to stabilize and strengthen these soils using such methods as those

described by Wahls (4), e.g., replacement, precompression, vibroflotation, etc. In the absence of

satisfying Equation 4, the recommendation of Seo, et al (6) and Seo (7) to use approach slabs

greater than 20 ft in length is encouraged. The minimum sleeper slab width at the beginning of

the approach should be 5 ft. The approach slabs should also be designed to support all loads in

free span to accommodate any erosion or settlement that may occur under the slab as well as

other means that will cause contact loss (such as thermal stresses).

In addition to the thorough geotechnical investigation and analysis previously discussed,

the embankment and abutment backfill materials must be of reasonable quality. For example, to

prevent erosion of the material from under the approach slab the material must satisfy the

gradation requirements for non-erodible material as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Seo, et al (6) and

Seo (7) suggest the following minimum qualities for the backfill and embankment materials

within 100 feet of the bridge abutment:

1) A plasticity index (PI) less than 15,

2) Less than 20 % passing the # 200 (75 μm) sieve,

3) Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) greater than 3.

83
Furthermore, with regard to compaction effort they suggest that the following specifications be

used for materials within 100 feet of the bridge abutment:

1) 95 % modified proctor density or greater,

2) Start with thinner loose lifts prior to compaction to ensure compaction specifications

are meet,

3) Increase in the frequency of QA/QC testing of in place backfill and embankment

materials.

The use of curb-to-curb approach slab width is recommended to prevent slab movement

relative to the shoulders. The approach slab should be tied into the wingwalls and barrier walls

in a fashion to minimize the infiltration of water into the underlying materials of the approach

slab system (see for example Figure 7).

Attention to drainage detail design to effectively move water away from the bridge

structure and approach slab system must still be rigorously followed and improved where

possible. Practice for joint detail design in the approach slab system and effective sealing of all

such joints where necessary must still be carefully followed.

Maintenance of drainage structures and joints is lacking and must be improved in order to

take full advantage of these design features.

While not discussed previously in this report, the use of corbels in the abutment design

for supporting the approach slab should be eliminated (see Figure 73). The use of corbels makes

effective compaction problematic in the region directly behind the bridge abutment. Such

deficient compaction can cause settlement problems with the approach system to the bridge. The

approach slab can still be supported by the abutment without the use of the corbel design. For

84
example the top of the abutment can be appropriately notched as per the details of Figures 74

and 75 (the Washington Street Bridge field trial to be discussed subsequently).

Figure 73 Example of
Abutment with Corbel.

Recommended Field Trials

To adequately investigate some of the issues brought up in this report, it is recommended that a

series of field trials be constructed on suitable bridges. These field trials should be appropriately

designed so as not to confound variables, at least to the extent feasible. Based on discussions

with the RAC, principally the NMDOT Materials Bureau Geotechnical Engineer, the first such

field trial should focus entirely on compaction control. Table 8 presents the parameters for such

an experimental field trial on the Washington Street Bridge reconstruction project in

Albuquerque. Perusal of this table shows that all but the proctor energy requirements are the

same for both abutments of the bridge. The north end is the control for the proposed experiment

and is built to all current standards, details, and material specifications, which includes 100 % of

standard proctor compaction for the backfill and embankment materials. The southern

85
experimental end, in contrast, requires 95% of modified proctor compaction for the backfill and

embankment materials. Note that the slab lengths (nominal 15 ft NMDOT standard), material

specifications and loose lift thicknesses are the same for both abutments as per current NMDOT

standards and specifications.

Table 7 Experimental Design for Bridge Abutments on Washington Street Bridge

Variable End 1 (Ctrl.), Abut. # 2 (N) End 2 (Exp.), Abut. # 1 (S)

Length, Approach Slab (L ) Std., 15 ft (nominal) Std., 15 ft (nominal)
Backfill, Abutment
Unit Wt., pcf 100% Std. Proctor 95% Mod. Proctor
Thickness, Loose 8 inch 8 inch
Depth ~7 ft ~7 ft
Length L + 10 ft L + 10 ft
Material Type A-1-a A-1-a
Testing Frequency 1 test per 1 foot of depth 4 tests per 8” loose lift
QA/QC Personnel Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.) Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.)
Embankment, Abutment
Unit Wt., pcf 100% Std. Proctor (§210.32B) 95% Mod. Proctor
Thickness, Loose 8 inch 8 inch
Depth ~13 ft ~13 ft
Roadbed Embankment Roadbed Embankment
Material Type
(§203.34A) (§203.34A)
Testing Frequency 1 test per 1 foot of depth 4 tests per 8” loose lift
QA/QC Personnel Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.) Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.)
Subgrade
Preparation Standard Standard
QA/QC Personnel Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.) Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.)
Existing Embankment,
Standard Specs & Provisions Standard Specs & Provisions
Non-Abutment
Testing Frequency N/A N/A
QA/QC Personnel Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.) Contract (P.E. from Mat. Bur.)

86
 Figures 74 and 75 are cross sections of the north and south abutments, respectively. Here

the material removed during reconstruction is seen to be replaced with a bench detail cut into the

existing embankment beyond the excavated section. This benched section extends from the base

of the bridge footing to top of grade over a distance of 50 ft. AASHTO A-1-a material is the

backfill specified between the bottom of the bridge beam seat and the bottom of the approach

slab. This high quality material extends to a distance of 10 ft in front of the approach slab. The

material between this backfill and the existing embankment is required to meet Section 203 of

the NMDOT Standard Specifications. Note that a Class 2 separator geotextile is to be placed

between under and along the sides of the backfill material in order to separate the backfill from

the Section 203 material.

For this experimental field trial, QA/QC is of the utmost importance. Therefore, a more

aggressive compaction control regime is recommended for these abutments. For the control end,

one test per one foot of compacted embankment or backfill is required. For the experimental

end, four tests per 8 inch loose lift of embankment or backfill is required. For this project, an

independent inspector is recommended for all QA/AC efforts with respect to compaction control.

This independent inspector should be a Professional Engineer with the authority to properly

control the compaction QA/QC.

Upon completion of the Washington Street field trial, appropriate measurements should

be made to determine the difference in performance of the two abutment ends. Survey markers

should be placed at appropriate locations to monitor any settlement of the bridge, approach slabs,

and approaching pavement. These measurements should be made over a one year period. The

null hypothesis of this experiment is, simply, that there are no significant differences between the

control end (100 % standard proctor) and the experimental (95 % modified proctor).

87
 Figure 74 Control Abutment #2, North End, Washington
St. Bridge.

Figure 75 Experimental Abutment #1, South End,

Washington St. Bridge.
Based on the above experiment it may be advisable to pursue additional field

experiments. The second such experiment would look at the difference in approach slab length

on opposite ends of a suitable bridge where the conditions are virtually identical on both ends.

The control end would incorporate the 15 ft nominal length approach slab currently used by the

NMDOT. The experimental end would use a longer slab length, for example, the minimum

length of 20 ft recommended by Seo, et al (6) and Seo (7). Such a slab would require additional

structural integrity because of the requirement for support of the total loads in free span.

88
 A third suggested field experiment would be the use of spread footings on an

experimental abutment end, while the control end would still make use of the current design

practice of using piles. Spread footings are currently used for MSE walls supporting bridge

structures in New Mexico, but seldom for other bridge types. Attention to some of the other

details outlined in this report may sufficiently eliminate “the bump” to allow the use of spread

footings for certain situations on a more regular basis.

Lastly, Hoppe (5) suggested in his report to the Virginia Transportation Research Council

the use of submerged approach slabs. Such a system is shown in Figure 76. In this system the

approach slab is beneath the base course material and sloped away from the abutment backwall

to ensure proper drainage. The advantage of this system is easier maintenance of the HMA and

base course material above the slab. It is suggested that the NMDOT implement a field trial with

such a submerged approach slab system. All other requirements outlined in this report would

still be applicable to this design approach as for the typical at grade approach slab approach.

Figure 76 Submerged Approach Slab System (Hoppe (5)).

89
 REFERENCES

1) Briaud, J.-L., Maher, S.F., and James, R.W. Bump at the End of the Bridge. Civil
Engineering. Vol. 67, No. 5, 1997, p. 68.

2) Briaud, J.-L., James, R.W., and Hoffman, S.B. Settlement of Bridge Approaches (The
Bump at the End of the Bridge). NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 234,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.

3) White, D., Sritharan, S., Suleiman, M., Mekkawy, M., and Chetlur, S. Identification of
the Best Practices for Design, Construction, and Repair of Bridge Approaches. Report
CTRE Project 02-118, Center for Transportation Research & Education, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA, 2005.

4) Wahls, H.E. Design and Construction of Bridge Approaches. NCHRP Synthesis of

Highway Practice No. 159, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1990.

5) Hoppe, E.J. Guidelines for the Use, Design, and Construction of Bridge Approach Slabs.
Report VTRC 00-R4, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA,
1999.

6) Seo, J., Ha, H.S., and Briaud, J.-L. Investigation of Settlement at Bridge Approach Slab
Expansion Joint: Numerical Simulation and Model Tests. Report FHWA/TX-03/4147-2,
Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2002.

7) Seo, J. The Bump at the End of the Bridge: An Investigation. Dissertation submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas, 2003.

8) Stewart, C.F. Highway Structure Approaches. California Department of Transportation,

Sacramento, CA, 1985.

9) Manual of Subsurface Investigations (Draft), American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1984.

90
New Mexico Department of Transportation
RESEARCH BUREAU
7500B Pan American Freeway NE
PO Box 94690
Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690
Tel: (505) 841-9145